CC Min 1996-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . I . .' Coordinator Jones-Thomas discussed the larger issue: whether the Council would like to redevelop the entire block, or whether the two properties on the end.... should be rehabilitated. Large pictures of the properties were displayed, and Coordinator Jones Thomas said both "properties were severely blighted. The Haven Property was totally vacant and has been since late Spring of this year, and it is becoming an increasing - problem for police, fire and the health department. The Rolison Property has six of the eight units occupied, and if we do acquire the property and choose to redevelop, the tenants in those units may be entitled to relocation assistance." Coordinator Jones-Thomas described state and federal levels of control regarding affordable housing. The state provides a projection of needed units in the City and the federal government gives the City money and asks how much can be accomplished. Coordinator Jones-Thomas displayed charts and said in the I980s the City had told the state its projections were unrealistic and only 50% of the goal might be met. The Housing Element adopted by the Council and at various times submitted to the State indicated that the City would only achieve about 12% of the low and very low income units. She described current affordable units in Redwood City, 376 units in which the City has been involved. The Rolison/Haven project wi!! put the City close to its goal - 166 out of the 172, the number of units previously projected and presented to the State as a more realistic goal. The City's Consolidated Plan projects producing 150 more units through the year 2000. Coordinator Jones-Thomas described the options of redevelopment and rehabilitation, the unknown conditions of the building and relocation costs, explaining why exact costs of both options carmot be pinned down. "The Council has indicated it wants to revitalize - the area and less density will be the vehicle that effects change, in which case the two parcels could be added to the new development. On the other hand, if the Council chooses to rehabilitate it would be with the understanding that we would put some additional funds in at this time for rehabilitation, and five to ten years down the road we would need to repeat that.... Additional costs for rehabilitation, the overcrowded units may cause relocation costs, however with rehabilitation that could be carried out with minimal relocation costs. We would rehabilitate one building first and then move the tenants into that and then rehabilitate the other. Redevelopment which is a longer term solution, and a more drastic improvement to the area aesthetically, there are some other unknowns, having to do with the cost of the actual relocation as well as one-for-one replacement." In response to Councilman Ruskin's questions, Coordinator Jones-Thomas explained that the State and Federal Governments "require that if you use public funds to remove affordable housing trom the housing stock, you have an obligation to replace those units. The Redevelopment Agency has demolished approximately 50 units and 21 of those units were occupied and they need to be replaced." Only occupied units need to be replaced, not those that were substandard or uninhabitable. Coordinator Jones-Thomas said that state law requires relocation costs to continue for 48 months, under federal law it is 42 months, and that only refers to the difference between what the tenants were paying and what they would be paying intheii comparable replacement units, or 30% of L.. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 MINUTES Page No. 486 PAGE 21